This EJRA is unlawful as determined by the University Appeal Court in the judgment:
'The EJRA as a scheme including the age of 67 is not objectively justified as required by law.'
Any procedure found, even by an internal inspection, to breach the Law should be suspended. This judgment was by a High Court judge: distinguished, independent, disinterested and objective.
Dismissal under an unlawful policy risks costly litigation by those dismissed and reputational damage. Suspension limits the University’s further risk. Suspension of current procedure has no implications as to whether the University continues to have some form of EJRA
But the Judge decided the case on general issues of principle not limited to this one case. Therefore the judgment applies to all cases
But the Judge ruled that the retirement age of 67 was not justified, as required by law, and this age remains in force. Further, the rule changes have exacerbated rather than solved the problems the Judge pointed out.
But if Congregation is the sovereign body, all members, whether or not in dispute with the university, are entitled to the benefit of legal advice on a matter of university policy:
But this is irrelevant to the issue: this EJRA is unlawful. The Judge ruled that this EJRA is not a proportionate i.e. legal, way to achieve these aims